Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30239583›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2018

Validity of the Body Adiposity Index in Predicting Body Fat in Adults: A Systematic Review.

Matheus Santos Cerqueira, Carolina Araújo Dos Santos, Diego Augusto Santos Silva, Paulo Roberto Dos Santos Amorim, João Carlos Bouzas Marins, Sylvia do Carmo Castro Franceschini

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Validity of non-traditional measures of obesity compared to total body fat across the life course: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Matheus Santos CerqueiraAcademic Department of Education, Federal Institute for Education, Sciences, and Technology Southeast of Minas Gerais, Rio Pomba, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Carolina Araújo Dos SantosDepartments of Nutrition and Health, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Diego Augusto Santos SilvaDepartment of Physical Education, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Paulo Roberto Dos Santos AmorimDepartments of Physical Education, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
João Carlos Bouzas MarinsDepartments of Physical Education, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Sylvia do Carmo Castro FranceschiniDepartments of Nutrition and Health, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de Viçosa · BRInstituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Minas Gerais · BRUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Body Adiposity Index (BAI) is a practical anthropometric method used to measure body fat (BF) percentage (BF%). Recently developed, the validity and precision of BAI has been studied with adult samples of men and women, populations from different countries and ethnicities, varying amounts of BF, and sensitivity to detecting change over time. However, it is still necessary to determine its potential use in clinical practice and epidemiologic studies. Thus, our objective was to verify, through a systematic review, the validity of the BAI in predicting BF% in adults. Two independent researchers performed a search using PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Scopus databases. In order to be included, the studies had to use dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method. We excluded studies with samples from individuals with diseases or syndromes that alter the regional distribution of BF%. We included 19 studies with samples on individuals from different continents, varied ethnicities, both sexes, and a wide age range (18-83 y). The concordance of the BAI with DXA assessed by Lin's concordance correlation coefficient showed results classified as poor (pc < 0.90). Bland-Altman plots showed that the BAI produced large individual errors when predicting BF% in all studies using this analysis. The studies were consistent in affirming that the BAI showed limited capacity to estimate BF% in adults. The BAI shows wide individual errors, in agreement with the reference method, and a lack of sensitivity in detecting change in BF% over time. The method presents a systematic error of BF% overestimation in individuals with ≤20% of BF, and underestimation in individuals with >30% of BF, regardless of sex, age, and ethnicity. The results of this systematic review show enough evidence that the BAI does not present satisfying results, and its use is not recommended for BF% determination in adults.

Indexed as

Adipose TissueAdiposityHealth Status IndicatorsAbsorptiometry, PhotonAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnthropometryFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityStatistics, Nonparametric

Identifiers

PMID30239583
PMCPMC6140443
OpenAlexW2890961389

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.